Proposed Legislation to Expand Allowed Commercial Uses

| Chloe Angelis
legislation

In the latest effort to ease longstanding zoning restrictions and encourage new business activity in San Francisco, Mayor Breed (along with Supervisors Engardio, Dorsey, and Melgar) have introduced legislation to expand the types of uses permitted in Neighborhood Commercial Districts (“NCDs”), streamline the change of use process in Eastern Neighborhood Mixed Use Districts, and incorporate numerous other Planning Code changes aimed at filling retail vacancies throughout the city.

Unlike a number of other recently proposed changes, this legislation would not limit the amendments to Downtown. Instead, it focuses on neighborhood commercial corridors and on expanding permissible uses and streamlining the change of use process for certain use types across the city. With retail vacancies in San Francisco as high as 14.8%,[1] any change that allows more categories of business to occupy empty commercial storefronts in more zoning districts would be a welcome policy change.

The 92-page ordinance has yet to be heard by the Planning Commission or the Land Use and Transportation Committee, so a lot could change between now and final passage, but here is a summary of some of the more meaningful changes proposed:

  • Professional Services Uses: Arguably the most substantive and exciting change is a proposal to eliminate the distinction between Retail Professional Services and Non-Retail Professional Services. Currently, Non-Retail Professional Services include businesses that provide services to other businesses, like accounting, legal, insurance, advertising, and consulting offices. Retail Professional Services cover uses primarily open to the general public—in other words, offices where a member of the public can walk in to talk to a lawyer, travel agent, or accountant. As drafted, the legislation would principally permit all types of Professional Services Use (both retail and non-retail types), within all NCDs and Chinatown mixed use districts. This opens up the possibility of office-type uses operating in ground and upper-level spaces in neighborhood commercial corridors throughout the city.
  • Section 311 Notice: The proposed ordinance would eliminate Section 311 notice for change of use projects in Eastern Neighborhoods Mixed Use Districts—doing away with the possibility of a discretionary review hearing for those projects. 311 notice would still apply to formula retail and substantial construction projects in those districts.
  • Legalization of Existing Outdoor Activity Areas: The proposed ordinance would allow business owners citywide to legalize an Outdoor Activity Area via a building permit, provided the Zoning Administrator or Planning Staff determines that the outdoor space has been operating (mostly continuously) for the last 10 years. No Conditional Use (“CU”) Authorization would be required for these legalizations, but a building permit would need to be filed within one year from when the proposed ordinance becomes effective.
  • Flexible Retail Uses: Previously limited to properties in Districts 1, 4, 5, 10 or 11 and zoned NCD, NCT or NCS, the legislation proposes to allow Flexible Retail Uses citywide. Flexible Retail Uses are defined as the combination of at least two of the following uses: Arts Activities, Limited Restaurant, General Retail Sales and Services, Professional Services, and Trade Shop.
  • Formula Retail in Residential Districts: The legislation would allow Formula Retail uses in RH and RM districts with approval of a CU.
  • Special Use District Controls: A number of proposed amendments ease controls on eating, drinking, and entertainment uses within Special Use Districts (“SUDs”). Here are a few highlights:
    • Allow new Restaurant, Limited Restaurant, and Bar uses on the first story in the Jackson Square SUD, with approval of a CU.
    • Allow a Music Entertainment Facility in the Mission Alcohol SUD to serve alcohol with an ABC Type 90 license.
    • Non-Formula Retail Restaurants and Limited Restaurants would be principally permitted within the Taraval Street Restaurant Subdistrict (i.e., no CU for these uses).
    • Permit Financial Service and Limited Financial Service uses with approval of a CU in the Chestnut Street Financial Service Subdistrict.
    • Allow new Liquor Establishments with approval of a CU in the Haight Street Alcohol Restricted Use Subdistrict.
  • Expedited CU Review: The legislation would allow Nighttime Entertainment and Non-Retail Sales and Services uses (including Professional Services) (that meet other eligibility criteria) to be eligible for the Community Business Priority Processing Program, which aims to schedule eligible projects for a consent calendar Planning Commission hearing within 90 days of the application being deemed complete. Many non-Formula Retail commercial uses are already eligible for this program.
  • Miscellaneous Changes: Other one-off exciting changes include the following:
    • Financial Services would be allowed on the ground floor with approval of a CU in many NCDs.
    • Professional Services and Design Professional uses would be allowed at the ground floor in the North Beach NCD.
    • The Sacramento Street NCD would permit Bars on the first story with a CU, and Gyms and Health Services would be principally permitted on the ground floor.
    • The Union Street NCD and Pacific Avenue NCD would allow Bars on the first story with a CU.
    • The West Portal NCD would permit Financial Services on the ground floor with a CU, and Health Services and Design Professional uses would be principally permitted on the first and second floor.
    • Allow new Restaurants, Limited Restaurants, and Bars within the Mission Street NCT, up to an increased maximum of 197 locations (up from 167). Full-service Restaurants and Bars allowed within the cap would still require a CU.
    • New Bars and Restaurants would be permitted in the 24th Street-Mission NCT with approval of a CU, subject to the limitation of the Calle 24 SUD.

In the current market, any kind of storefront activation is good for the health of commercial corridors, and it seems that the prevailing political opinion finally agrees. This piece of legislation is just at square one of the process, and you can track its progress here.

[1] See Cushman & Wakefield San Francisco North Bay Metro Retail Q1 2023 Report; available at https://www.cushmanwakefield.com/en/united-states/insights/us-marketbeats/san-francisco-north-bay-marketbeats (accessed June 21, 2023.)

 

Authored by Reuben, Junius & Rose, LLP Attorney Chloe Angelis.

The issues discussed in this update are not intended to be legal advice and no attorney-client relationship is established with the recipient.  Readers should consult with legal counsel before relying on any of the information contained herein.  Reuben, Junius & Rose, LLP is a full service real estate law firm.  We specialize in land use, development and entitlement law.  We also provide a wide range of transactional services, including leasing, acquisitions and sales, formation of limited liability companies and other entities, lending/workout assistance, subdivision and condominium work.

New State Laws Affecting Condo Homeowners Associations

| Jay Drake
HOAs

There are relatively fewer new state laws affecting condominium homeowners associations (“HOAs”) in 2023 than in recent years. However, one particular bill was passed by the California State legislature that includes important changes condominium owners and HOAs should be aware of.  Assembly Bill 1410 made a few significant changes to the Davis-Stirling Common Interest Development Act, which is the primary state law affecting condos and HOAs.  These new laws became effective January 1, 2023.

As we have previously reported over the past few years, the state legislature has been making an effort to increase affordable housing in the state.  To that end, the ability of HOAs to restrict rentals of condo units has been curtailed.  Assembly Bill 3182, passed in 2020, amended Civil Code Section 4740 to limit the power of HOAs to enforce restrictions on a homeowner’s ability to rent his or her unit.  AB 3182 also added new Civil Code Section 4741, which provides that HOAs cannot require a minimum rental term of greater than thirty (30) days.  Section 4741 also states that HOAs cannot enforce a cap on the number of units that may be rented at greater than 25%.  Units that are owner-occupied where only a portion of the unit is rented, or an accessory dwelling unit (ADU) that is part of the unit is rented, do not count towards any such rental cap.  The effect of this is to limit restrictions on rental of ADUs and a unit owner’s ability to rent rooms in his or her unit.

AB 1410 furthers the state legislature’s objective of increasing affordable housing by adding a new section 4739 to the Civil Code.  Section 4739 provides that an HOA’s governing documents cannot prohibit an owner from renting out a portion of his or her unit so long as the owner occupies the unit and the rental term is for more than 30 days.  This has the effect of allowing more short term rentals so long as the rental period is for more than 30 days.

AB 1410 also amends Civil Code Section 4515 to provide that an HOA’s governing documents cannot prohibit a member or resident from exercising free speech by using social media or other online resources to discuss certain matters, even if the content is critical of the HOA or its governance. Such matters include development living, HOA elections, proposed legislation, government elections, and other issues of concern to members and residents of the community.  This does not mean an HOA has to provide any social media or other online resources to its members, and an HOA does not have to allow members to post content on the HOA’s website.  This new law seems to be fixing a problem that is not widespread, but has become an issue in some HOA communities.

Finally, AB 1410 prohibits an HOA from pursuing any enforcement actions for a violation of its governing documents during a declared state or local emergency if the nature of the emergency makes it unsafe or impossible for the owner to either prevent or fix the violation.  The only exception is an enforcement action relating to an owner’s nonpayment of assessments to the HOA.  This rule is clearly intended to give homeowners some leeway to comply with an HOA’s governing documents during government imposed emergency declarations.

 

Authored by Reuben, Junius & Rose, LLP Attorney Jay Drake.

The issues discussed in this update are not intended to be legal advice and no attorney-client relationship is established with the recipient.  Readers should consult with legal counsel before relying on any of the information contained herein.  Reuben, Junius & Rose, LLP is a full service real estate law firm.  We specialize in land use, development and entitlement law.  We also provide a wide range of transactional services, including leasing, acquisitions and sales, formation of limited liability companies and other entities, lending/workout assistance, subdivision and condominium work.

2023 Legislation at a Glance – Part 2

| Justin A. Zucker and Sabrina Eshaghi
policies

As reported last week, this legislative session is packed full of pending bills with far reaching changes to land use controls and local control of such. In Part 1, we discussed some of the most significant bills introduced impacting the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA), the State Density Bonus Law, and removal of an only in San Francisco allowance to appeal a building permit after a qualifying residential project receives entitlement. Here, in Part 2, we discuss significant bills introduced related to housing, parking, accessory dwelling units (ADUs), and other land use-related policies.

Accessory Dwelling Units

Since their introduction into housing nomenclature by former Bay Area lawmaker Senator Bob Wieckowski (D-Fremont) in 2016 with SB 1069 along with companion AB 2299 (Bloom), ADUs have become somewhat of a darling child in the housing production world. Over the years, several bills have passed intended to increase the production of ADUs. A few include a package – AB 68 (Ting), AB 587 (Friedman), AB 670 (Friedman), AB 671 (Friedman), AB 881 (Bloom), and SB 13 (Wieckowski) – enacted in 2019 and another pair of bills from 2022 – AB 2221 (Quirk-Silva) and SB 897 (Wieckowski). This year, we see proposals for further relaxation of controls on ADUs, including:

  • AB 1033 (Ting) would allow a local jurisdiction to permit condominiumization and sale of ADUs separate from the primary residence.
  • AB 1332 (Carillo) would require jurisdictions, by April 2025, to publish six sets of permit ready floor plans (studio, 1-bedroom, and 2-bedroom, in both standard and reverse formats) for detached ADUs.
  • AB 1661 (Bonta) would remove the requirement that an ADU be individually metered for electrical and gas service and allow for an ADU to use existing or upgraded meters on the property.
  • AB 976 (Ting) would make permanent an existing prohibition to imposing an owner-occupancy requirement on an ADU that sunsets January 1, 2025.
  • SB 477 (Committee on Housing) would create a new Government Code chapter to house state ADU regulations.

Constitutional Amendments

There are two noteworthy Constitutional Amendments being proposed this legislative session.

ACA 1 (Aguilar-Curry) Affordable Housing Bond Approval Threshold. Would lower the necessary voter threshold for approving affordable housing bonds from a two-thirds supermajority to 55%. This appears to be a set up for a forthcoming affordable housing bond (AB 1657, Wicks), slated to go before the voters in fall of 2024.

ACA 10 (Haney) Housing a Fundamental Right. Would amend the Constitution to declare that the state recognizes the fundamental human right to adequate housing for everyone in California. The amendment would impose a shared obligation on the state and local jurisdictions to respect, protect, and fulfill this right, by all appropriate means, including legislative action.

Relaxing of Parking Controls

In recent years, there has been an effort to reduce minimum parking controls. Last year, AB 2097 (Friedman) removed a local jurisdiction’s ability to impose any minimum parking requirements on residential or commercial development located within one-half mile of public transit (as defined). This year there is a trio of bills that will further relax parking controls local jurisdictions may impose:

  • AB 1317 (Carrillo) would require landlords to “unbundle” parking costs from rent from leases or rental agreements for residential property commencing or renewed on or after January 1, 2024.
  • AB 1308 (Quirk-Silva) would prohibit a local jurisdiction’s ability to increase the applicable minimum parking requirements of a single-family residence as a condition of approval to remodel, renovate, or add to a single-family residence.
  • AB 894 (Friedman) would allow properties with underutilized parking (as defined) to share spaces with other users, which would count toward meeting any automobile parking requirement.

Housing Policies

AB 1485 (Haney) Attorney General Right To Intervene in Actions Involving Violations of State Housing Laws. This bill would grant the Attorney General an unconditional right to intervene in any lawsuit filed over a potential violation of an enumerated list of state housing laws, including, among others, the Housing Accountability Act, Housing Crisis Act of 2019, and the Density Bonus Law.

AB 1532 (Haney) Streamlined Office to Residential Conversions. This bill would allow by-right, ministerial office to residential conversion projects statewide and limit fees and design requirements that local governments can impose on conversions. It would also allow an applicant to pay applicable impact fees over a ten-year period. It includes a skilled and trained workforce requirement. This bill has been converted to a two-year bill and we will likely not see any movement on it until next year.

AB 1633 (Ting) Housing Accountability Act Protection Extended to CEQA Review. This bill would expand the Housing Accountability Act’s definition of “disapprove the housing development project” to include any instance when a local agency fails to issue an exemption, fails to adopt a negative declaration or addendum for the project, or certify an environmental impact report or another comparable environmental document.

AB 281 (Grayson) Streamlining Post-Entitlement Permits. This bill would extend the post-entitlement permit timelines created by AB 2234 (2022, Rivas) to special districts. AB 2234 imposes the following timelines for review of post-entitlement applications for housing projects: (1) for projects with 25 units or fewer, a local agency shall complete first review and comment within 30 days of an application completion; and (2) for projects with 26 or more units, a local agency shall complete first review and comment within 60 days of an application completion.

AB 821 (Grayson) General Plan Consistency. This bill would provide that, in the event a local jurisdiction fails to amend a zoning ordinance to be consistent with the general plan within 90 days of receiving written notice of the inconsistency, a proposed development project cannot be deemed inconsistent with that zoning ordinance and cannot be required to be rezoned, if there is substantial evidence that (1) the proposed project is consistent with objective general plan standards and (2) the zoning for the project site is inconsistent with the general plan.

AB 919 (Karla) Stable Homes Act – Tenant Opportunity to Purchase. This bill would require a residential property owner, including owners of single-family homes, to (1) provide notice of their intent to sell the residential real property to each tenant and qualified entities and (2) allow each qualified entity ten days to give notice of interest and either 60 or 40 days to submit an offer to purchase to the owner. For a single-family residential property, the qualified entity must provide existing tenants eighteen months to purchase the entire residential property or to purchase improvements if the underlying land is to be retained by a community land trust.

SB 294 (Weiner) Minimum Floor Area Ratio Limits. This bill would expand the minimum floor area ratio (FAR) standards under state law that currently only apply to projects providing up to 10 units, to apply to all housing projects. The bill would prohibit municipalities from imposing an FAR limit less than 2.5 on housing projects providing 11-20 units. For housing projects over 20 units, it would prohibit an FAR limit less than 1.25 for every ten units.

SB 423 (Weiner) SB 35 Extension and Expansion. This bill would permanently extend SB 35 (2017, Weiner), which is currently set to expire January 1, 2026, and expand its applicably as discussed below:

  • Eligibility. This bill would allow SB 35 projects (1) in the coastal zone and (2) on wetlands or protected habitat if authorized by any other state or federal law. It would also apply in cities that have failed to adopt complaint housing elements as determined by HCD.
  • Labor Standards. This bill would remove the skilled and trained workforce requirement. Instead, the requirement to pay prevailing wages will remain, and on projects over 50 units, contractors would be required to offer apprentices employment and cover health care expenditures.
  • Clarifications. This bill clarifies that the planning director or other equivalent local government staff is required to make determinations about compliance with the objective planning standards, all departments required to weigh in on a project before granting entitlement must do such within SB 35’s time parameters (60 or 90 days depending on project size), prohibits the local government from requiring consultant studies to evaluate consistency with objective planning standards, removes references to public oversight from the design review process, and prohibits requiring compliance with any standards necessary to receive a postentitlement permit for purposes of the SB 35 approval.

SB 450 (Atkins) SB 9 Amendments. This bill would amend SB 9 (2021, Atkins), the fourplex/urban lot split legislation that took effect last year, by:

  • Removing the limitation on demolition of more than 25% of the existing exterior structural walls to be eligible for ministerial approval;
  • Prohibiting a local agency from imposing objective standards that do not apply uniformly to development within the underlying zoning or do not relate to the design or improvements of a parcel;
  • Removing the ability of a local jurisdiction to deny a SB 9 project if the building official makes a written finding that the proposed housing development project would have a specific, adverse impact on the physical environment;
  • Requiring the local agency to approve or deny a SB 9 application within 60 days from receiving a completed application; and
  • Requiring the local agency to provide a full set of comments to the applicant with a list of items that are defective or deficient and a description of how the application can be remedied by the applicant if it denies an application.

AB 1218 (Lowenthal) SB 330 Amendments. This bill would tweak SB 330 (2019, Skinner) by extending the protected unit demolition and replacement controls, which currently only apply to housing development projects, to projects that are not considered housing developments. This bill would also place the restrictions on demolition of protected units and replacement requirements into a separate provision that will apply permanently, which otherwise would become inoperative on January 1, 2030.

Land Use-Related Policies

SB 466 (Wahab) Rent Control Reform – 15-Year Look Back. This bill would amend Costa Hawkins to allow municipalities to apply rent control to properties that were issued a certificate of occupancy more than 15 years before the date the owner seeks to establish the rental rate. It would also remove the exemptions for properties that are alienable and separate from title to any other dwelling units, meaning rent control could be applied to single family homes and condos.

SB 745 (Cortese) Water Demand Reduction. This bill would require the California Building Standards Commission to propose mandatory building standards to reduce the potable water demand of new buildings by 25% from current mandatory design requirements and to minimize the use of potable water for nonpotable uses. The bill would require the Commission to adopt mandatory building standards for new buildings to be designed to capture graywater and use alternative water sources for nonpotable building and landscaping water uses.

SB 83 (Weiner) Electrical Grid Connection. This bill would require electrical utilities to connect, aka energize, a development project to the electrical grid within 8 weeks of the project being ready for interconnection (previously known as receiving a “green tag”). An alternative time period may be set and applies if an issue specific to the project or project site arises that would prevent the utility from safely completing the interconnection. This bill would further require a utility to compensate a development project applicant for failing to meet either the 8-week or the alternatively-set time period.

 

Authored by Reuben, Junius & Rose, LLP Attorneys Justin A. Zucker and Sabrina Eshaghi.

The issues discussed in this update are not intended to be legal advice and no attorney-client relationship is established with the recipient.  Readers should consult with legal counsel before relying on any of the information contained herein.  Reuben, Junius & Rose, LLP is a full service real estate law firm.  We specialize in land use, development and entitlement law.  We also provide a wide range of transactional services, including leasing, acquisitions and sales, formation of limited liability companies and other entities, lending/workout assistance, subdivision and condominium work.

2023 Legislation at a Glance – Part 1

| Justin A. Zucker and Sabrina Eshaghi
CEQA

As we’ve previously reported, 2022 was a blockbuster year for housing legislation and it appears this legislative session is gearing up to be just as consequential. But, with approximately a quarter of the legislative body in their freshman year, it’ll be difficult to determine how the session will play out. In this two-part update, we will be providing a brief overview of some of the most significant bills introduced thus far impacting the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA), State Density Bonus Law, housing, parking requirements, accessory dwelling units (ADUs), and other land use-related policies.

CEQA Reform

A substantial number of CEQA-related bills have been introduced this legislative session. Most significantly, meaningful CEQA reform appears to be a priority with multiple bills aiming to creatively address CEQA misuse.

AB 978 (Patterson) Bond Requirements for CEQA Challenges to Housing Projects. This bill would require any person bringing a CEQA lawsuit against a housing project to post a bond of $500,000 to cover the costs and damages to the housing project incurred by the project sponsor or lead agency. The court would be permitted to waive or adjust the bond requirement if there is good cause to believe the requirement does not further the interest of justice.

AB 340 (Fong) Written Comments Must be Submitted Ahead of Hearing. This bill would require project opponents to make any written comments challenging the project’s compliance with CEQA at least ten days before the public hearing on the project. Any written comments submitted after that time could not be used in a CEQA lawsuit against the project. Note that this would not restrict opponents’ ability to present oral comments at the hearing.

SB 239 (Dahle) Limits on CEQA Litigation. First, this bill would only allow the Attorney General to bring CEQA lawsuits challenging certified Environmental Impact Reports (EIRs), Negative Declarations, or Mitigated Negative Declarations, meaning members of the public and community organizations would no longer have standing in cases involving these types of CEQA documents. Notably, it excludes other types of CEQA documents like exemptions. Challenges brought for non-environmental purposes would be subject to dismissal and award of attorney’s fees. Second, courts would be prohibited from stopping construction or operation of a project due to CEQA litigation, unless the project (1) presents an imminent threat to public health and safety or (2) contains unforeseen important Native American artifacts or unforeseen important historical, archaeological, or ecological value that would be materially, permanently, and adversely affected. Even in that case, the court can only stop specific activities related to those impacts. Third, for housing projects, the bill would limit subsequent CEQA actions challenging an agency’s remedial revisions to CEQA documents in response to a court’s ruling by prohibiting the court from considering new issues that were not raised in the original proceeding. Lastly, until January 1, 2030, lawsuits challenging certified EIRs for commercial, industrial, housing, or public works projects that meet certain standards and address longstanding critical needs in the project area must be resolved within 365 days, unless the court makes certain findings.

These bills may indicate that the long-awaited first step toward CEQA reform is on the horizon. In addition, a couple of other CEQA-related bills have been introduced that would be helpful in limiting review:

  • Two bills appear to be a response to the First District Court of Appeal ruling last month involving the UC Berkeley project that proposes to turn the People’s Park into student and homeless housing. In that case, the court held that the EIR failed to analyze potential noise impacts from loud student parties, among other inadequacies.
    • AB 1307 (Wicks and Luz Rivas) would amend CEQA to clarify that for residential projects, noise generated by the unamplified voices of residents is not an impact on the environment.
    • AB 1700 (Hoover) would clarify that for housing projects, in addition to noise impacts, population growth is also not an impact on the environment.
  • Currently, aesthetic impacts are not considered significant effects on the environment for housing projects involving the refurbishment, conversion, repurposing, or replacement of an existing building. This existing law is set to expire January 1, 2024. AB 356 (Mathis) would make this provision permanent.

State Density Bonus Updates

Similar to last year, a number of bills proposing updates and tweaks to the current State Density Bonus Law have been introduced.

AB 1287 (Alvarez) Additional Density Bonus. This bill would modify the State Density Bonus Law to supersede the California Coastal Act of 1976. This bill would also allow up to an additional 50% density bonus for projects that (1) maximize the very low income, low income, or moderate-income units permitted under the current State Density Bonus Law and (2) provide up to 15% additional moderate-income units. Projects that utilize this additional moderate-income bonus would also receive up to six incentives or concessions.

AB 1630 (Garcia) Ministerial Student Housing. Dubbed the Student Housing Crisis Act of 2023, AB 1630 would require student and faculty and staff housing (with limitations) on property within 1,000 feet of a university campus to be ministerially approved if a minimum of 20% of the units are affordable to lower income households. In exchange, a local agency could not impose or enforce a minimum parking requirement, floor-to-area ratio requirement, rear or side setback requirements greater than four feet, or height limit below forty feet. This bill would require a range of wage and training standards, including paying prevailing wage, providing workers with health benefits, and giving graduates of state-approved apprenticeship programs first access to these jobs (similar to AB 2011, which is taking effect July 1, 2023).

AB 323 (Holden) Restricting Use of For-Sale Units as Rentals. This bill would prohibit a developer from offering a for-sale unit constructed pursuant to a local inclusionary zoning ordinance to a purchaser that intends to rent the unit to families of extremely low, very low, low-, and moderate-income families, unless the developer can prove that none of the applicants for owner-occupancy can qualify for the unit. Any violation would be subject to a civil penalty of not more than $15,000.

AB 637 (Low) Undermining Local Inclusionary Ordinance Not Allowed. This bill would create an exception from the requirement to grant an incentive, concession, waiver, or reduction if it would alter the requirements of a local inclusionary affordable housing ordinance. The initial draft of this bill would have created an exception from the requirement that a jurisdiction grant an incentive, concession, waiver, or reduction if the project would have an adverse impact on a policy that affirmatively furthers fair housing.

Only in San Francisco

As previously reported last month, AB 1114 (Haney) would bar jurisdictions (San Francisco is the only one affected) from allowing building-permit appeals after a qualifying residential project has received an entitlement.

Stay tuned next week for an overview of proposed legislation related to housing, parking, ADUs, and other land use-related policy bills.

 

Authored by Reuben, Junius & Rose, LLP Attorneys Justin A. Zucker and Sabrina Eshaghi.

The issues discussed in this update are not intended to be legal advice and no attorney-client relationship is established with the recipient.  Readers should consult with legal counsel before relying on any of the information contained herein.  Reuben, Junius & Rose, LLP is a full service real estate law firm.  We specialize in land use, development and entitlement law.  We also provide a wide range of transactional services, including leasing, acquisitions and sales, formation of limited liability companies and other entities, lending/workout assistance, subdivision and condominium work.

West Side Story: Proposed Legislation May Remove Barriers for Small Projects

| Chloe Angelis
legislation

Supervisor Myrna Melgar has introduced legislation that aims to incentivize much-needed family-sized housing on the west side of the city. While clearly in line with the City’s housing production goals, it includes some requirements that could make it inapplicable to most of the west side properties it aims to cover.

The draft legislation would create the Family Housing Opportunity Special Use District, which shares a boundary with the Well-Resourced Neighborhoods Map included in the draft 2023-2031 Housing Element. The map covers the entire west side of the city, plus the Marina, Cow Hollow, and parts of North Beach. As drafted, the ordinance would expire eight years after it becomes effective.

The proposed ordinance encourages the construction of two-to-four-unit projects that provide at least two 2-bedroom units within the new special use district. Qualifying projects would be exempt from an otherwise-required conditional use authorization (“CU”), including CUs that typically apply to the demolition of an existing residential unit. Eligible projects would also be exempt from Section 311 notice and the discretionary review process. Obtaining approval of a CU or having a project sent to the Planning Commission by a neighbor via discretionary review creates uncertainty and can add many months to a project’s approval timeline. Taking both CU requirements and Section 311/discretionary review off the table are meaningful incentives.

The legislation does not automatically exempt these projects from CEQA—but small new construction projects should be eligible for Class 3 (new construction of small structures) categorical exemptions.

Specifically, the new rules would apply to projects that construct two-unit buildings (including a two unit building with a third standalone unit outside the proposed building envelope) and three-unit buildings (including a three unit building with a fourth standalone unit outside the proposed building envelope). At least two of the units in a qualifying project must have at least two bedrooms.

Projects must consist of ground-up new construction, and while they would be exempt from the otherwise-applicable density limit (up to four units per lot and not including any permitted accessory dwelling units), projects would not be exempt from the otherwise-applicable height limit for the property in question.

As drafted, the legislation includes several other restrictions that will limit its potential impact:

Qualifying projects cannot demolish a historic resource and must comply with the Residential Design Guidelines and the Planning Code, except for lot-based dwelling unit density limits. While requiring Code compliance in exchange for bypassing Planning Commission review is reasonable, the Residential Design Guidelines are not entirely objective, which will make it difficult for sponsors to assess whether Planning Staff will deem a particular project in compliance with the guidelines. It’s also difficult to imagine how a third or fourth unit constructed outside the main building envelope could comply with the Planning Code’s rear yard and obstruction controls.

Additionally, projects cannot propose the demolition of any of the following:

  • Units that are or were subject to a recorded covenant, ordinance, or law that restricts rents to levels affordable to persons and families of lower or very low income within the past five years;
  • Units that are or were subject to the Residential Rent Stabilization and Arbitration Ordinance (Chapter 37 of the Administrative Code) within the past five years;
  • Units that are or were occupied by lower or very low income households within the past five years; or
  • Units that were withdrawn from the rental market pursuant to the Ellis Act within the past 10 years.

The requirement related to the Rent Stabilization and Arbitration Ordinance (i.e., the “Rent Ordinance”) is very limiting as drafted. Most residential units in San Francisco are subject to the Rent Ordinance, which has a rent control component and an eviction protection component.

Units built after June 13, 1979, most single-family homes and condos, and units that have undergone substantial rehabilitation are subject to the Rent Ordinance, but only to the eviction controls (not the rent increase limitations that apply to other units). If the legislation intends to exclude these units and older units subject to rent control limits, there will be nothing left for redevelopment pursuant to the proposed Family Housing Opportunity Special Use District. Protecting affordable units from demolition is a logical policy choice, but hopefully the legislation will be amended to limit this restriction only to units subject to the Rent Ordinance’s rent control protections.

Supervisor Melgar’s proposal has the potential to be an impactful piece of legislation to spur development on the west side of the city and we’ll be keeping an eye on its progress through the legislative process.

 

Authored by Reuben, Junius & Rose, LLP Attorney Chloe Angelis.

The issues discussed in this update are not intended to be legal advice and no attorney-client relationship is established with the recipient.  Readers should consult with legal counsel before relying on any of the information contained herein.  Reuben, Junius & Rose, LLP is a full service real estate law firm.  We specialize in land use, development and entitlement law.  We also provide a wide range of transactional services, including leasing, acquisitions and sales, formation of limited liability companies and other entities, lending/workout assistance, subdivision and condominium work.

Cars to Casas Nearing Adoption

| Tuija Catalano
housing

Approximately a year ago we reported on Mayor London Breed’s introduction of the “Cars to Casas” legislation which proposed to make it easier to build housing on existing parking lots, gas stations and properties improved with certain other automotive uses.  The legislation has now been rebranded as “Automotive Uses to Housing Uses” and made significant progress in the last two weeks with a positive recommendation from the Land Use and Transportation Committee on Monday, December 5th, and unanimous votes at the full Board of Supervisors on first reading on Tuesday, December 6th and on second and final reading on Tuesday, December 13th.  The legislation will be forwarded next to the Mayor for her signature, and if signed, will become effective 30 days thereafter.

The legislation has been pending since October 2021, in part due to the Land Use and Transportation Committee’s request for an economic analysis.  If adopted, the legislation will eliminate a conditional use authorization requirement that currently applies to conversion of existing gas station uses, and would create an exception to the permitted residential density at eligible sites.  Sites that are eligible under the legislation are those that are currently used for auto-oriented uses, allow residential uses as a principally permitted use but do not currently contain any residential uses, and have not had a Legacy Business on the site within four years prior to the application submittal date.

As proposed, including amendments by the Land Use and Transportation Committee, the legislation will not apply to any properties that are zoned for the RM (Residential-Mixed) or RC (Residential-Commercial) district, or to properties that are located in a historic district.

The permitted residential density for RH (Residential-House) districts is up to four units per lot, and for all other eligible sites density is unlimited provided the project complies with applicable height, bulk, setback and other Planning Code requirements.  That said, eligible sites can also utilize the state density bonus program, which can allow waivers and concessions from otherwise applicable Planning Code requirements.

The legislation is one example of efforts by Mayor Breed and the City to make it easier to build more housing and to get entitlements and permits for development proposals, and as such, a welcome proposal.  If the legislation is signed by the Mayor in the next 10 days, it will become effective in approximately mid-January 2023.

 

Authored by Reuben, Junius & Rose, LLP Attorney Tuija Catalano.

The issues discussed in this update are not intended to be legal advice and no attorney-client relationship is established with the recipient.  Readers should consult with legal counsel before relying on any of the information contained herein.  Reuben, Junius & Rose, LLP is a full service real estate law firm.  We specialize in land use, development and entitlement law.  We also provide a wide range of transactional services, including leasing, acquisitions and sales, formation of limited liability companies and other entities, lending/workout assistance, subdivision and condominium work.

Supervisors Pass New EV Charging Rules

| Chloe Angelis
legislation

Back in March, we wrote about pending legislation that would amend the Planning Code to specifically address electric vehicle (“EV”) charging uses. At the time, the legislation was headed to the Planning Commission for initial consideration. On Tuesday, the Board of Supervisors unanimously passed an amended version of that legislation on the first reading.

As we explained in our March update, the Planning Code does not currently contemplate EV charging at all—leaving operators to work with the Planning Department on a case-by-case basis to determine the permissibility and approval path for any new EV charging site.

In order to meet the City’s climate action targets (which include a goal of 100% registered private vehicle electrification by 2040), the legislation aims to create a Planning framework to streamline the approval of publicly accessible EV charging stations and to regulate (though not necessarily streamline) the approval of new fleet vehicle charging sites.

The legislation creates two new Planning Code use categories, both under the umbrella of “Automotive Use.” The new “Electric Vehicle Charging Location” (“EV Charging Location”) use covers public-facing charging locations and “Fleet Charging” covers EV charging facilities that are dedicated to a private entity and not available to the general public.

The initial draft of the legislation would have required Conditional Use (“CU”) Authorization for Fleet Charging in most zoning districts, except in PDR-1-D, PDR-1-G, and PDR-2 districts, where Fleet Charging would have been principally permitted. That draft also would have prohibited Fleet Charging in the Neighborhood Commercial Districts. The earlier version of the ordinance called for more permissibility related to EV Charging Locations, which would be permitted in most districts, and would be principally permitted wherever the existing use is already some type of Automotive Use. This provision remains in the version passed on Tuesday.

The legislation was heard by the Land Use and Transportation Committee three times after it came out of the Planning Commission on April 14 with a handful of recommended changes. Several more amendments were made at those three Committee hearings—mostly to further restrict the permissibility of Fleet Charging uses—as outlined here:

  1. While the initial version of ordinance would have allowed EV Charging Locations to dedicate up to 1/3 of spaces as accessory Fleet Charging, the final version of the ordinance prohibits Fleet Charging as an accessory use to EV Charging Locations or to any other use. I.e., no accessory Fleet Charging, period.
  2. Consistent with the Planning Commission’s recommendation, the final legislation permits Fleet Charging in most of the Neighborhood Commercial Districts with approval of a CU.
  3. The Land Use and Transportation Committee opted to require a CU for Fleet Charging in all of the PDR districts, primarily based on a concern that Fleet Charging uses could displace businesses that provide blue collar jobs. However, existing Private Parking Lots and Vehicle Storage Lots in the PDR-1-D, PDR-1-G, and PDR-2 districts will be able to convert to Fleet Charging without a CU. Supervisor Peskin explained that this minor exception would cover a limited number of properties located in District 10.

In addition to the above changes incorporated into the version of the legislation approved by the Board this week, the Land Use and Transportation Committee also created a duplicated version of the file in order to add a set of new CU findings that would apply to Fleet Charging projects. As drafted, a proposed Fleet Charging use would require consideration of the following criteria:

  1. The proposed Fleet Charging use will not induce demand for low occupancy vehicles in highly congested areas or in transit-rich areas.
  2. Vehicle movement on or around the Fleet Charging use will not unduly impact pedestrian spaces or movement, transit service, bicycle movement, or the overall traffic movement.
  3. If the vehicles accessing the proposed Fleet Charging use are owned by one ownership entity, that the ownership entity establishes that it has secured sufficient parking spaces for vehicles when not in operation within San Francisco or adjacent counties.

The second finding essentially codifies a question that a Fleet Charging project’s environmental review would already address—i.e., would a new vehicle-oriented use significantly impact traffic in the vicinity of the project? The Planning Department is experienced with traffic circulation issues and how they should be addressed as part of the land-use process. So, we don’t anticipate a significant amount of uncertainty related to this second finding.

The first and third findings, however, leave open some critical questions of interpretation.

The first finding speaks to low occupancy vehicles. The Planning Code doesn’t define that term, but it is generally understood to mean a vehicle with one or two people in it. It’s not clear what this finding would mean as applied to a Fleet Charging use serving EV rideshare vehicles—which may sometimes carry only one passenger at a time. Other types of fleets, including delivery vehicles and service vehicles, will often have a driver and no passengers. Depending on how it’s applied, this finding could actually discourage the electrification of rideshare fleets—contrary to a 2021 California Air Resources Board mandate that rideshare companies reach zero GHG emissions and ensure that 90% of their vehicle miles are fully electric by 2030.[1]

It’s also unclear what exactly the third proposed finding aims to accomplish. EV chargers are likely to be installed at parking facilities, such that vehicles can be parked and charged in one place. Discouraging a dual charging/parking use would seem to run contrary to vehicle miles traveled (“VMT”) reduction goals.

Hopefully, these questions will get answered as the duplicated version of the ordinance makes its way through the legislative process. The duplicated legislation has been referred back to the Planning Commission, but as the Commission and Board of Supervisors head into August recess, we’ll have to wait until the fall to see how this shakes out.

[1] California Air Resources Board, Resolution No. 21-10 (May 20, 2021); see also California Air Resources Board Bulletin, California requires zero-emissions vehicle use for ridesharing services, another step toward achieving the state’s climate goals (May 20, 2021), available at: https://content.govdelivery.com/accounts/CARB/bulletins/2da5a7a.

 

Authored by Reuben, Junius & Rose, LLP Attorney Chloe Angelis.

The issues discussed in this update are not intended to be legal advice and no attorney-client relationship is established with the recipient.  Readers should consult with legal counsel before relying on any of the information contained herein.  Reuben, Junius & Rose, LLP is a full service real estate law firm.  We specialize in land use, development and entitlement law.  We also provide a wide range of transactional services, including leasing, acquisitions and sales, formation of limited liability companies and other entities, lending/workout assistance, subdivision and condominium work.

Legislation Expands CUA Appeal Rights to Tenants

| Reuben, Junius & Rose, LLP
Appeal

On Tuesday June 14th, Supervisor Melgar introduced a new version of legislation (“Appeal Legislation”) that will change, and effectively lower the threshold, for appeals of Conditional Use Authorizations (or denial) by the Planning Commission.

A Conditional Use Authorization (“CUA”) refers to the use or development of a parcel that is not permitted as-of-right but requires additional scrutiny by the Planning Commission. These land uses have special characteristics or a unique nature that may be suitable only in certain locations or operated and arranged in a particular manner. As such, they have a higher threshold for approval. The San Francisco Planning Code states that a CUA can be approved if they are “necessary or desirable for, and compatible with, the neighborhood or the community” (Section 303(c)(1)), along with other specific findings. CUA appeals are acted upon by the Board of Supervisors.

Because the standard for granting CUA’s are highly subjective, public opinion and political pressures often come into play in determining the “necessity or desirability, and compatibility” of a project. While land use justifications are given for classifying certain uses as conditional, other motives are often in play: to protect existing, local businesses from competition by formula retail or an overconcentration of similar businesses; to preserve the amenity and value of existing buildings by making height above 40 or 50 feet a conditional use, even in high-density districts where height limits allow for taller buildings and tall buildings are prevalent. With subjective standards for both approvals and appeals at the Board of Supervisors, some decisions may effectively become a popularity contest and create a great deal of uncertainty for applicants, property owners, and tenants. This is particularly true for businesses requiring a conditional use. Prior to new state laws setting stricter standards for disapproving or reducing the density of housing developments, new residential construction was downsized more frequently for compatibility with adjacent buildings.

Currently, a decision by the Planning Commission on a CUA may only be appealed within 30 days by either 1) five members of the Board of Supervisors; or 2) the owners of at least 20% of the property within 300 feet of the exterior boundaries of the subject property. Where a property has joint ownership, the signature of each owner is calculated as representing the affected property in “direct proportion to the amount of total ownership of that property attributable to the owners subscribing to the notice of appeal” (Section 308.1(b)(4)). A CUA may only be overturned or modified by a 2/3 vote of the Board.

The primary substantive change in the Appeal Legislation would count the signature of “Verified Tenants” as well as those of property owners toward meeting the 20% threshold for filing an appeal (currently, only owners are eligible). After receiving the signatures, the Department of Public Works (“DPW”) would have five days to verify whether the 20% requirement had been fulfilled.

In a city where the vast majority of owners and businesses rent or lease, and many owners do not live or operate businesses on their property, the policy motivations of the Appeal Legislation are self-evident: to give the people living or running a business in a building who may be most affected by a CUA decision standing to file an appeal regardless of whether they own the affected property.

With some narrow exceptions (e.g., property owners voting to tax themselves for community benefit districts that provide additional services), conditioning public participation or voting on property ownership is an anachronism. (North Carolina, the last state to make property ownership a prerequisite to voting in presidential elections, abolished its requirement in 1856.) With that said, the Appeal Legislation does raise several questions about the relative weight given to verification of tenant signatures, tenant votes, and the potential for double-counting votes in some instances:

  • Verified Tenants or Honor System? Only a “Verified Tenant” may subscribe to an appeal. A Verified Tenant is a commercial or residential tenant who declares under penalty of perjury that they lease an entire property or a unit on the property with a lease term exceeding 32 days. A Verified Tenant must maintain proof of tenancy (lease or other government document showing residency/occupancy) and have occupancy longer than 32 days as of the date of signing the appeal.

However, the Department of Public Works is not required to verify tenant documentation; it “may” request documentation at its discretion. It also does not specify that the signature from a business must be an authorized signatory for the business. For example, during the installation of street seating under COVID emergency orders, there were instances of unauthorized employees granting permission for structures with seating for adjacent restaurants to encroach on another store’s frontage without the business owner’s knowledge or consent. Given that DPW only has five days to determine the validity of an appeal, the verification process seems more like an honor system with a bare minimum of time for DPW to calculate the percentages based on self-reporting by signatories.

Five days does not provide a reasonable amount of time for requesting and verifying even a random sample of documentation from Verified Tenants. Further, defining a Verified Tenant as one occupying a unit pursuant to a lease should require a tenant to provide a copy of the lease. Other documents (DMV records, federal income tax records, and utility bills) may demonstrate that a tenant lives somewhere, but not that they are an authorized occupant with a lease. Verifying property ownership, the current requirement for CUA appeals, is an easier process since ownership is a matter of public record. Under the Appeal Legislation, the relevant documents to prove up occupancy for Verified Tenants are not a matter of public record and an applicant has no right to demand an audit by DPW. At minimum, a random audit of a percentage of tenant signatories should be included and the overall total counted toward the appeal discounted accordingly. This could be accomplished without extending overall timelines for a 5-day preliminary acceptance of the appeal, subject to an additional period for DPW to conduct a random audit to determine the percentage of invalid signatures. If the rate of valid signatures in the sample would cause the overall number of signatures to fall below the 20% threshold, the appeal would be rejected. (This is similar to the approach used for a preliminary evaluation and rejection of signatures in support of ballot measures.)

  • One Tenant Speaks for All Tenants in a Unit & All Units Are Equal. Where a rental unit is occupied by more than one tenant, the signature of one tenant in a unit effectively speaks for all tenants in the space. Similarly, all rental units are counted equally toward the 20% threshold. For example, in a multi-unit property, a 10,000 square foot commercial rental unit would be given equal weight as a 500 square foot studio unit. Compare this to the treatment of jointly owned property, where only the portion of the property attributable to a single signatory is counted.
  • Potential for Double-Counting. Where a joint owner and a tenant sign on to an appeal, each signatory is counted according to the method laid out for each. As an example, if an owner of one unit in a 2-unit condo building has a 50% interest in the property and rents that unit out, their two signatures would be added together such that they would effectively represent 100% of the property for appeal purposes. If the other owner or tenant joined, the percentage counted toward the appeal would not increase beyond 100%. On the other hand, if the other owner also rented and both that owner and tenant opposed the appeal, they would effectively be disenfranchised in determining the appeal threshold.

Depending on the number of rental units and ownership structure of buildings near the project, the Appeal Legislation could significantly reduce the 20% threshold, effectively negate the voice of supportive property owners and tenants, and, without any mandatory verification mechanisms for tenants, undermine transparency and trust in the validity of an appeal.

With that said, the Appeal Legislation does include other terms that reduce confusion and promotes administrative efficiency. For example, it requires the Planning Commission’s final, signed approval to be transmitted to the Clerk of the Board within 10 days of the Planning Commission’s action. No such reporting is currently required, and final decisions are not always issued within 10 days. Thus, the 10-day limit should broadly benefit all recipients of CUA approvals and reduce the burden on the Clerk of verifying the Planning Commission’s action. Appeals may not be filed “earlier than ten business days” or later than 30 days from the date of action by the Planning Commission. Although this technically shortens the appeal window to 20 days, the overall 30-day time period remains unchanged and there is no tolling of the appeal period if the final Planning Commission decision is not transmitted to the Clerk within 10 days.

Since most CUA appeals are filed towards the end of the 30-day appeal period, the change should have minimal, if any, effect on the length of the CUA appeal process. It does, however, lower the bar for appeals and increases the risk of delay and cost overruns, particularly for small businesses.

Given San Francisco’s slower-than-average recovery from COVID-19 job losses, the broader question the Appeal Legislation raises is one of priorities and goals for the city’s future. Is this the time to introduce more uncertainty and procedural hurdles into the business and housing environment?

Or should policymakers be focused on bigger questions facing our city: the revival of downtown and Union Square, restoring the tourism sector, and creating space for more flexible models for living, working, and doing business in a post-pandemic (or COVID endemic) world. Is a CUA really necessary for banks, architect’s offices, or small-scale hotels in Neighborhood Commercial Districts? Or for enlarging a successful business into an adjacent storefront? Are minor changes like these worth the time and attention of San Francisco’s elected officials? On balance, does the extent of regulatory oversight strike the right balance between public participation, public policy goals, and the costs, both in time and money, to applicants.

Public participation in the Planning process should be—and is—a given. But right now, shouldn’t that participation be focused on how to fill vacant spaces and addressing a persistent housing shortage and widespread homelessness, rather than adding time, cost, and risk for businesses and projects that fulfill those goals? By making big moves to provide flexibility and fast, by right-approvals for new housing and new/expanding businesses, San Francisco can send a strong signal that it is still the adaptable, dynamic, creative city that will continue to be an economic and cultural powerhouse—and not the dystopia the national press has portrayed it as of late. Tenants—both residential and commercial—should of course have a place at the table when major changes are proposed. But that participation should be focused on major changes in zoning rules and large-scale projects that need exceptions from standard regulations. At a bare minimum, an expansion of the right to bring a CUA appeal should be accompanied with the elimination of CUA requirements that stand in the way of important public policy goals.

Regardless of where one stands on these amendments, if approved, they will change the CUA Appeal landscape. The legislation was introduced at the June 14th Board of Supervisors hearing and requires review and comment by the Planning Commission before it is taken up by the Supervisors. Stay tuned for updates on this legislation.

 

Authored by Reuben, Junius & Rose, LLP.

The issues discussed in this update are not intended to be legal advice and no attorney-client relationship is established with the recipient.  Readers should consult with legal counsel before relying on any of the information contained herein.  Reuben, Junius & Rose, LLP is a full service real estate law firm.  We specialize in land use, development and entitlement law.  We also provide a wide range of transactional services, including leasing, acquisitions and sales, formation of limited liability companies and other entities, lending/workout assistance, subdivision and condominium work.

To Fourplex or Not to Fourplex

| Thomas P. Tunny
fourplex

Senate Bill 9 (SB 9), which took effect January 1, 2022, enables property owners to split their single-family residential lot into two separate lots and build up to two new housing units on each lot.  A key component of SB 9 is that it requires ministerial approval of such projects.  In San Francisco (the “City”), that means no discretionary review process and other opportunities for project opposition.  The City’s policymakers and housing advocates were influential in the adoption of SB 9.  And yet, now that it’s here, the City’s lawmakers can’t seem to decide if they like SB 9.

Housing advocates hailed SB 9 for facilitating the construction of new, smaller dwelling units throughout the City.  Everyone can agree that the City needs housing.  However, the City’s new housing production in recent years has been heavily concentrated in the eastern and southeastern parts of the City, with 90% of all new housing produced in just ten eastside and central neighborhoods.  Development in these neighborhoods has at times been subject to significant conflicts and prevented from moving forward.  At the same time, roughly 60% of the City’s developable land area is in residential zoning districts, concentrated primarily on the City’s west side, with 38% of the City’s developable land area zoned exclusively for single-family homes.  Just 3% of housing built since 2005 was added in areas that allow one to two units (only 6% of affordable housing when ADUs are counted).  SB 9 presents a fresh approach.

When Supervisor Rafael Mandelman proposed his “fourplex” legislation last summer, allowing any single-family home to be turned into a fourplex, and corner lots to have six units, it seemed SB 9 would be embraced, and that some of the City’s more vexing housing challenges would be addressed.  It wasn’t that easy.

Last Monday (April 11), the Board of Supervisors’ Land Use Committee considered Supervisor Mandelman’s fourplex legislation.  Supervisor Mandelman, facing significant political push-back, had amended his legislation to upzone all single-family residential districts (RH-1 and RH-1(D)) in the City to two-family density (RH-2 and RH-2(D)).  The elimination of single-family zoning is a means of ensuring the approval of new fourplexes and six-unit projects would not be ministerial, and that discretionary review of these projects would continue.  This is because the ministerial provisions of SB 9 apply only to single-family residential districts.

Advocates of preserving the discretionary review process cite the need for the City to maintain design review control over new housing.  But discretionary review is not about design review.  Discretionary review has become a process that project opponents manipulate to stop new development.  It adds significant time, cost, and risk to the production of housing, thereby discouraging new units.  If design review is the concern, there are better ways to accomplish that without leaving it to discretionary review.

Other related issues addressed by Supervisor Mandelman’s legislation include residency and tenancy controls, measures to prevent demolition, condominium conversion and subdivision controls, and rent protections.

In the end, at the Land Use Committee on Monday, the Committee approved certain amendments proposed by Supervisor Melgar that sought to encourage larger units, incentivize marginalized homeowners to create more units, and waive the application fees for Historic Resource Assessments,  and then voted to continue its consideration of the legislation to the April 25 meeting.

 

Authored by Reuben, Junius & Rose, LLP Attorney Thomas P. Tunny.

The issues discussed in this update are not intended to be legal advice and no attorney-client relationship is established with the recipient.  Readers should consult with legal counsel before relying on any of the information contained herein.  Reuben, Junius & Rose, LLP is a full service real estate law firm.  We specialize in land use, development and entitlement law.  We also provide a wide range of transactional services, including leasing, acquisitions and sales, formation of limited liability companies and other entities, lending/workout assistance, subdivision and condominium work.

Planning Commission Considering EV Charging Regulations

| Chloe Angelis
EV

This Thursday, the San Francisco Planning Commission will consider an ordinance that would amend the Planning Code to address electric vehicle (“EV”) charging uses. The Planning Code does not contemplate EV charging currently—leaving operators to work with the Planning Department on a case-by-case basis to determine the permissibility and approval path for any new EV charging site.

As summarized in the Planning Commission Staff Report, 2022-000549PCA (“Staff Report”), for the legislation, the City’s climate action targets include the following transportation goals:

  • By 2030, 80% of trips taken by low-carbon modes such as walking, biking, transit, and shared EVs.
  • By 2030, increase vehicle electrification to at least 25% of all registered private vehicles, and, by 2040, to 100% of all such vehicles.

The International Council on Clean Transportation (ICCT) predicts that in order to serve the 170,000 light duty EVs predicted to be registered in San Francisco by 2030, “the number of publicly accessible charging stations in San Francisco needs to increase from about 800 in 2019 to 2,000 by 2025, and over 5,000 by 2030.” (See Staff Report.) The proposed ordinance aims to create a regulatory framework to guide the slew of EV charging projects that the City expects to see over the next several years in response to that demand.

As currently drafted, the legislation would create two new Planning Code use categories, both under the umbrella of “Automotive Use.” The new “Electric Vehicle Charging Location” use would cover public-facing charging locations and “Fleet Charging” would cover EV charging facilities that are dedicated to a private entity and not available to the general public.

For reference, the proposed amended definition of an Automotive Use would read as follows:

A Commercial Use category that includes Automotive Repair, Ambulance Services, Automobile Sale or Rental, Automotive Service Station, Automotive Wash, Electric Vehicle Charging Location, Fleet Charging, Gas Station, Parcel Delivery Service, Private Parking Garage, Private Parking Lot, Public Parking Garage, Public Parking Lot, Vehicle Storage Garage, Vehicle Storage Lot, and Motor Vehicle Tow Service. All Automotive Uses that have Vehicular Use Areas defined in this Section of the Code shall meet the screening requirements for vehicular use areas in Section 142.

If the legislation is enacted as drafted, Fleet Charging uses would require Conditional Use Authorization in most zoning districts except for in PDR-1-D, PDR-1-G, and PDR-2 districts. Fleet Charging would be prohibited in the Neighborhood Commercial Districts. Electric Vehicle Charging Locations would be more widely permitted, and would be principally permitted in most districts where the existing use is already some type of Automotive Use. Such conversions from an existing Automotive Use to an Electric Vehicle Charging Location would also be exempt from the Section 311 building permit review and noticing requirements—meaning those projects would not be subject to the City’s often costly and time-consuming discretionary review process.

While most Fleet Charging projects will require Conditional Use approval under the new rules, the legislation does allow some limited Fleet Charging as an accessory use to public charging, with Fleet Charging limited to a maximum of 1/3 of the total charging stations.

Planning Staff has recommended the following two changes to the legislation:

  1. Require Conditional Use Authorization in all C-3 Districts for Electric Vehicle Charging Locations and change the code to make Gas Stations a Conditional Use in the two C-3 districts where they are currently principally permitted.
  2. Exempt the conversion of existing automotive uses to EV Charging from Section 142 Screening requirements.

After the Planning Commission hears the legislation on Thursday, it will then go to the Land Use and Transportation Committee before being heard by the full Board of Supervisors. You can track the ordinance’s progress here.

 

Authored by Reuben, Junius & Rose, LLP Attorney Chloe Angelis.

The issues discussed in this update are not intended to be legal advice and no attorney-client relationship is established with the recipient.  Readers should consult with legal counsel before relying on any of the information contained herein.  Reuben, Junius & Rose, LLP is a full service real estate law firm.  We specialize in land use, development and entitlement law.  We also provide a wide range of transactional services, including leasing, acquisitions and sales, formation of limited liability companies and other entities, lending/workout assistance, subdivision and condominium work.